Years ago, I was on a plane with stuck flaps that made an emergency landing in Portland OR. The pilot was one cool cucumber. The brakes and tires did get smoked as we landed but we got off the plane safely.
The pilot was also periodically advising other pilots in the area that they were dumping fuel -- professional and considerate. And then after talking with the company's maintenance department, he's thinking "No way are we going to fly all the way to India with stuck flaps... besides, O'Hare airport is a United hub and their repair facility would be there as well.
It is a standard call by ATC during fuel dumping: "Attention all aircraft, fuel dumping in progress [distance and direction from landmark] at ___ altitude, ___ type aircraft
@@EdOeuna and they will burn much more fuel, which will probably cause dropping below minimum reserve fuel at the destination, or even not enough fuel to reach. Another reason is you don't know why the flaps are stuck, probably hydraulic . Not a good choice to fly with
@Wolfgang van Oorschot And that means nobody should be concerned about the thousands and thousands of lbs of fuel dumped on land? Definitely a highly populated area also lmaoo ya big dummy
Good by both Air Traffic Control and the United pilots. Don’t know what the landing speed was but had to be quite high. As for the fuel dumps it would have to be about 15,000 gallons. Most of it evaporates with little hitting the ground. Fuel dumps are only done under extreme or emergency circumstances!
Out of curiosity, it looked like they were doing the fuel dump over land? Is that normal procedure? Wouldn't dumping over the water be safer in terms of none being below them getting showered with A1? Edit: Also, I assume the high landing speed was due to the weight of fuel? Why not dump some more to reduce the weight so that the brakes etc aren't stressed?
Jet fuel evaporates really fast so as long as they are high enough it will evaporate before it gets close to the ground, or water! High landing speed is because the flap setting for takeoff is lower than the setting for landing. Since the flaps are stuck in a takeoff setting they can’t create as much lift as they would in the landing setting. So the aircraft has to fly the approach at a faster speed to keep the aircraft from stalling, therefore landing faster. More speed equals more lift essentially. Hope that makes sense!
this aint exactly a life/death scenario - its the same as having a power steering fluid leak on the highway - annoying and requires attention, but not dangerous
@@ghostrider-be9ek - well, it's a flight control surface... and when you don't know what's causing the malfunction, you can't rule out it will get worse.
@@ghostrider-be9ek My comment is that if they did a high speed landing without getting rid of the fuel their brakes would have been significantly hotter and could have brought a different outcome.
@@RonPiggott yes, but they could have achieved the same goal by holding for a while and burning the gas. Not all aircraft are capable of dumping fuel, even when they can take off over the max landing weight. It is not life saving to dump fuel, it is only a time saver. Truth be told, they could even land with that heavier weight in a true emergency, and not have such a problem either.
@@steve1978ger these aircraft have very good monitoring systems. It will be abundantly clear to the pilots if there is an overarching problem (eg hydraulic failure) causing the flaps not to move, but when that is the only failure, they can be sure that the problem is isolated to the flaps. There is no getting worse from stuck flaps that will make it a life or death situation -- these aircraft are built and tested to handle these emergencies
"Heavy" designates the amount of wake turbulence the plane creates. The 767, 787, 747, 757, and 777 are designated as 'Heavy'. The 737 is a medium. The A380 is a Super heavy. If a lighter plane (like a Cessna) flies underneath a 'heavy' aircraft, then they could be hit with the turbulence generated by the wingtip vortices, which can be catastrophic. The amount of turbulence often correlates with the aircraft weights, except in the 757s case. The 757 generates a huge amount of wake turbulence despite being smaller than a 767.
Dumping 100000 pounds from 6000 feet with temperature around 30F, how much jet fuel hit the ground or lake? I would guess at least 60000 pounds. That's a significant environmental disaster even spread out over 200 square miles. Is there a cleanup protocol for that? I wouldn't want to drink that water, or eat those crops, or let my kids play in those parks, for years.
@@38Flyer Jet fuel (basically kerosene) evaporates slower than gasoline. I'm trying to get info from the EPA but I believe a large fraction of the fuel would hit the ground or lake at that low altitude and low temperature.
If you actually watch the video they dump fuel over land and at flight level 6000. It evaporates and the FAA regulation is that it shouldn't be below 2000 feet.
Seemingly a well handled response to a fairly minor failure from which they can’t continue. The pilots seemed to be a little hesitant with their decision making process and asking ATC instead of telling ATC what they wanted. Climbing higher than that initial 5000ft wouldn’t have hurt either.
Depending on weather ya it could have hurt. Working with atc isn’t abnormal the aircraft is flying fine so working with atc to avoid other disruptions isn’t being hesitant. Also a flap failure isn’t a minor failure post landing fires are a major concern.
The controllers are making way too much communication for any aircraft with these circumstances. The pilots are experiencing high work clothes… They do not need excessive communication.
It’s not a high workload situation. They are communicating to the cabin and company as well as ATC, but the checklist and flight deck set up can be completed in about 5 minutes.
Also for a flight to India these guys probably had 4 pilots on this flight, so even the non-flying crew members were probably assisting in running checklists.
Praise be to Allah the Capitan was able to land the jet safely and not run off the tarmac and the Co-Pilot was able to talk to the Tower on the radio and the Air Hostesses were able to serve Lassi!!!
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
![INCIDENT REVIEW - American Airlines Boeing 787 Engine Ingests Cargo Container at O'Hare [10.17.24]](/img/1.gif)
Years ago, I was on a plane with stuck flaps that made an emergency landing in Portland OR. The pilot was one cool cucumber. The brakes and tires did get smoked as we landed but we got off the plane safely.
The pilot was also periodically advising other pilots in the area that they were dumping fuel -- professional and considerate. And then after talking with the company's maintenance department, he's thinking "No way are we going to fly all the way to India with stuck flaps... besides, O'Hare airport is a United hub and their repair facility would be there as well.
That was the ATC -- mislabeled as UA712
It is a standard call by ATC during fuel dumping: "Attention all aircraft, fuel dumping in progress [distance and direction from landmark] at ___ altitude, ___ type aircraft
Believe me, he knew from the beginning they won't fly to destination with stuck flaps...
You can’t fly that far with flaps partially extended. There are altitude limitations for the aircraft above which you can’t have extended flaps.
@@EdOeuna and they will burn much more fuel, which will probably cause dropping below minimum reserve fuel at the destination, or even not enough fuel to reach. Another reason is you don't know why the flaps are stuck, probably hydraulic . Not a good choice to fly with
ATC guy was very skilled... Clear and concise
That fuel dumping was right over my f-ing house, apparently.
And nothing of value was lost.
Strike a match
Staring at those road line shapes, I'm pretty sure they went within a few hundred feet of directly overhead my childhood home
Lived in Wood Dale as a young kid.
✈️ ✈️ ✈️
The pilot just sounded like he was over it. Trying to get A to B but ended at A again. Glad all souls were ok and good on the atc
That's a lot of fuel at low altitude and low temps. Surprised they didn't dump completely over the lake.
It was mentioned several times in the conversation that they were afraid of the existing icing condition over the water.
@Wolfgang van Oorschot And that means nobody should be concerned about the thousands and thousands of lbs of fuel dumped on land? Definitely a highly populated area also lmaoo ya big dummy
Apparently it evaporated
@@TheLurch11 That's just not how jet fuel works. It evaporates.
@@HarshL ......
Surprised I didn’t run across this on the Chicago news.
Good by both Air Traffic Control and the United pilots. Don’t know what the landing speed was but had to be quite high. As for the fuel dumps it would have to be about 15,000 gallons. Most of it evaporates with little hitting the ground. Fuel dumps are only done under extreme or emergency circumstances!
"East- West lines in your present position," not "flaps flying..."
Thank you.
Out of curiosity, it looked like they were doing the fuel dump over land? Is that normal procedure? Wouldn't dumping over the water be safer in terms of none being below them getting showered with A1?
Edit: Also, I assume the high landing speed was due to the weight of fuel? Why not dump some more to reduce the weight so that the brakes etc aren't stressed?
Jet fuel evaporates really fast so as long as they are high enough it will evaporate before it gets close to the ground, or water! High landing speed is because the flap setting for takeoff is lower than the setting for landing. Since the flaps are stuck in a takeoff setting they can’t create as much lift as they would in the landing setting. So the aircraft has to fly the approach at a faster speed to keep the aircraft from stalling, therefore landing faster. More speed equals more lift essentially. Hope that makes sense!
I think the mechanical issue was stuck flaps so that may explain the landing distance
You can't put a price on life. I am glad they dumped the fuel in order to land.
this aint exactly a life/death scenario - its the same as having a power steering fluid leak on the highway - annoying and requires attention, but not dangerous
@@ghostrider-be9ek - well, it's a flight control surface... and when you don't know what's causing the malfunction, you can't rule out it will get worse.
@@ghostrider-be9ek My comment is that if they did a high speed landing without getting rid of the fuel their brakes would have been significantly hotter and could have brought a different outcome.
@@RonPiggott yes, but they could have achieved the same goal by holding for a while and burning the gas. Not all aircraft are capable of dumping fuel, even when they can take off over the max landing weight. It is not life saving to dump fuel, it is only a time saver. Truth be told, they could even land with that heavier weight in a true emergency, and not have such a problem either.
@@steve1978ger these aircraft have very good monitoring systems. It will be abundantly clear to the pilots if there is an overarching problem (eg hydraulic failure) causing the flaps not to move, but when that is the only failure, they can be sure that the problem is isolated to the flaps. There is no getting worse from stuck flaps that will make it a life or death situation -- these aircraft are built and tested to handle these emergencies
not sure if anyone sees this, but, when he says 'UAL712 Heavy' is the Heavy part a call sign for cargo-plane? or is it the size?
"Heavy" designates the amount of wake turbulence the plane creates. The 767, 787, 747, 757, and 777 are designated as 'Heavy'. The 737 is a medium. The A380 is a Super heavy.
If a lighter plane (like a Cessna) flies underneath a 'heavy' aircraft, then they could be hit with the turbulence generated by the wingtip vortices, which can be catastrophic.
The amount of turbulence often correlates with the aircraft weights, except in the 757s case. The 757 generates a huge amount of wake turbulence despite being smaller than a 767.
Pretty sure thats kels....
I hear that too! Defintely him!
I ask again, why do the majority of these Real ATC's involve Boeing Aircraft.
Ask all you want. They don't.
Dumping 100000 pounds from 6000 feet with temperature around 30F, how much jet fuel hit the ground or lake? I would guess at least 60000 pounds. That's a significant environmental disaster even spread out over 200 square miles. Is there a cleanup protocol for that? I wouldn't want to drink that water, or eat those crops, or let my kids play in those parks, for years.
Wow. And let me guess that was never reported to the EPA.
I have always wondered about dumped fuel as well.
I thought altitude evaporates before it hits the ground
@@38Flyer Jet fuel (basically kerosene) evaporates slower than gasoline. I'm trying to get info from the EPA but I believe a large fraction of the fuel would hit the ground or lake at that low altitude and low temperature.
If you actually watch the video they dump fuel over land and at flight level 6000. It evaporates and the FAA regulation is that it shouldn't be below 2000 feet.
Seemingly a well handled response to a fairly minor failure from which they can’t continue. The pilots seemed to be a little hesitant with their decision making process and asking ATC instead of telling ATC what they wanted. Climbing higher than that initial 5000ft wouldn’t have hurt either.
Depending on weather ya it could have hurt. Working with atc isn’t abnormal the aircraft is flying fine so working with atc to avoid other disruptions isn’t being hesitant. Also a flap failure isn’t a minor failure post landing fires are a major concern.
My wifes flaps have been stuck for the past 18 years.
Zaten düşüncemi yazıyorum herzaman yorum olmaz ietisimleri paniklestirebilir ne yazdı ne yazıyor gibi zaman kayıplarına neden olur.
The controllers are making way too much communication for any aircraft with these circumstances. The pilots are experiencing high work clothes… They do not need excessive communication.
It’s not a high workload situation. They are communicating to the cabin and company as well as ATC, but the checklist and flight deck set up can be completed in about 5 minutes.
Keep in mind this video is compressed, so it sounds like a lot, but it's spread out over like 45 minutes.
@@TheTiktok4321 … I did not think it was compromised, as the visual “target” did not jump.
@@daddybearlv the visual is sped up in between communication
Also for a flight to India these guys probably had 4 pilots on this flight, so even the non-flying crew members were probably assisting in running checklists.
😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣
You gotta be shitin me on this one ! Damn near fiasco - WTF 200K ? OMG …. SHAME !
....relax!
Praise be to Allah the Capitan was able to land the jet safely and not run off the tarmac and the Co-Pilot was able to talk to the Tower on the radio and the Air Hostesses were able to serve Lassi!!!
Praise the pilots and checklists
Jesus is the truth and the God of the Bible
@@BlueBraviaryGirl prove it :)